Animals vs humans round 2(1003 Posts)
I was enjoying our previous debate started by Fifi. Not sure if we were done!
AIBU to think if faced with choosing a pet over a human (even if a stranger), you should choose the human?
The idea was brought up in another thread and put in life or death situation. Building on fire contains your pet and a stranger. You could only save one, who would it be?
I had a dog, Ralph, I cried my heart out when he died 3 years ago. The only dog I wasn't scared of! But I can't imagine leaving a person to die instead, no matter how my heart would break.
Not giving a shit about strangers and/or their DCs isnt the same as wishing ill on someone tho, is it?
Thanks for that. I really would like to emphasise again that I don't wish pain and suffering on anyone outside of those who abuse children and animals but they're all cunts!
If she didnt want it to be a fight she wouldnt have called it round two!
I'm happy to be a sanctimonious do gooder in this debate!
well, one thing is for sure, no one will be accusing AKAK of being a sanctimonious do gooder.
Spider always 'goes to work' when she is stumped for answers the returns to the thread when she thinks her comments have been forgotten
Dont rise to him, I dont care if this gets deleted AKAK but I would be amused and rip the piss if my husband was chatting on mumsnet the way you are. Surely you could find a more appropriate forum
Yes AKAK'S post should be left to stand.
It magnifies all what is wrong with these two threads and those excuse of human beings who would save the life of animal over a human being, especially someone's child.
Ah well there you go, a personal attack from AKAK.
What do you think of that spider?
Not giving a shit about strangers and/or their DCs isnt the same as wishing ill on someone tho, is it? So Im not sure I see the problem with AKAK81's comments. Although what s/he said doesnt sound very nice its his/her own truth in the context of the post, after all.
Id save a child over a dog but Id still feel sorry for the dog
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
At least I didn't copy paste my homework from the internet, Miss! <hides chewing gum under the seat>
AKAK, you say you're not interested in random children or people who are strangers to you, yet you raise money for children's charities. Are they not random children?
Spider, This vile statement from AKAK has to be one of the goadiest statements I've ever read on MN
Quite frankly I couldn't give a flying fuck about the devastation of some random mother over the loss of their random child. Why should I? It has no impact on my life whatsoever.
I'm quite happy it's been allowed to stand though so posters can get the measure of AKAK and those that align themselves with him.
And now we have "it wasn't me Miss I was never there"
Yes, if they have chosen to go into the building to save their pet, or chosen their pet over another human on their own way out, they are on the same level as a drunk driver, and saying you don't give a shit about it makes me wonder if you are in fact drink, because there is no other charitable explanation for a statement like that.. A callous disregard for the safety and welfare of others is what they have in common.
'You have a chance to personally save one particular individual and you pass it up in favour of saving a dog' is not analogous to 'having a chance to indirectly contribute to the welfare of the poor but deciding not to donate to a third party who may or may not make sure the money gets where it will do the most good'..
Lol. I read "murderers" "dog killer" and "dumb" from spider and they were definitely not within a hypothetical context but in a "you are all..." context.
Mumsnet hq aren't going to award you points for the most sycophantic post spider
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.